Thursday, January 31, 2013

I think I may have used this title for a blog before, but as
it is so descriptive of some human behavior I believe it is still useful.
Unhappily, I think it applies to the behavior of one of our best known Senators
who was once a war hero but has in recent years dishonored himself several
times over. I am speaking of Senator John McCain of Arizona. I must say I
thought his questioning of Chuck Hegel today was disgraceful. He and Hegel were
friends, McCain had previously said he thought Hegel would be a great Secretary
of Defense, and today he turned on him like a jackal. His treatment of his
former friend and colleague was mean, unnecessary, petty and spiteful. I think
it was mainly personal as well as political. I guess it had to do with McCain’s
obsession with being right about Iraq when in fact he was completely wrong and
does not want to admit it. And it also, I think, was a continuation of his
constant revengeful attacks on President Obama for having defeated him in an
election. When you demand a yes or no answer to a complicated question like “was
the surge a success, yes or no,” you know the questioner is being completely
unreasonable. Such a question could only be posed by someone simple minded
enough to believe there are actually yes or no answers to everything. If you
asked McCain, for example, if the Iraq war was really necessary he would no
doubt answer “yes.” If you asked him if the sacrifice of 500,000 Iraq children
was worth the sanctions on that country he would also probably, without doubt
answer the same. So, Senator McCain, has our multi-billion dollar “war on drugs”
been a success, yes or no? Is the Republican party engaged in a “war on women,”
yes or no. Was “Custer’s last stand” necessary, yes or no? Did we lose the war in Vietnam, yes or no? Was the Civil War just about slavery, yes or
no? Remember we are talking about a man who was willing to risk the possible
fate of our nation to a virtually unknown basically mindless woman whose claim
to foreign policy experience was that she could see Russia from her front porch
and read all the newspapers and magazines put
in front of her, none of which she could name. Also, as I recall, she
thought Africa was a country. McCain was at one time a war hero, also a
sometimes reasonable “maverick.” How the mighty have fallen. He is a perfect
example of why we should have a mandatory retirement age.

Of course it is only to be expected that where McCain goes
his wimpy little Sancho Panza, Lindsey Graham, will follow. Graham’s concern,
as near as I could tell, is to make certain that the world’s number one war
criminal will be protected at all costs. Indeed, most of the criticism of Hegel
has to do with statements he made in the past indicating that Israel might
actually have undue influence over our Congresspersons. Heaven forbid that
anyone could say anything in any way, even a teensy bit critical of Israel, a
racist, colonial, criminal, murderous enterprise that has violated virtually
every UN and international standard ever imposed, and that is knowingly engaged
in a form of slow genocide of Palestinians.

As near as I can tell the attacks on Hegel are of two kinds,
personal and political. Apparently McCain has some personal grudge, maybe a few
others do as well, but the political part of it is more of an attack on
President Obama than Hegel. It is also obvious for some of the critics the
hearing is mainly being used as a place to get some air time and perhaps a “name.”
Much of the questioning and posturing had nothing much to do with being
Secretary of Defense, merely the usual Congressional obfuscation.

It seems there are at least some who believe that housewives
should be armed with assault rifles to protect themselves from potential assaults
by four or five (brown or black?) intruders intent on rape and pillage. Why
stop there? I think they should also have anti-aircraft guns for the potential flying
pigs. Really, are there no even imaginary limits too ridiculous or far-fetched for
the NRA and the gun manufacturers?

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Governor Jindal certainly has it right when he suggests the
Republican Party has been the Stupid Party, whether he is the person to make it
less stupid is questionable as he signed a controversial law permitting the
teaching of creationism in Louisiana schools. But it seems clear to me that the
Republican Party has been pretty stupid of late.

Consider a Republican attempt in Arizona to forbid a rape
victim from having an abortion because that would be “tampering with evidence.”
Or how about the Tennessee Republican who wants to cut family welfare benefits
by 30% if their child does not do well in school? And of course there are “nullification”
efforts going on in several states that would make enforcement of Federal laws
a felony (I guess they never heard of the Civil War). And don’t forget the
claim that silencers for guns are useful because they protect children’s
hearing, and perhaps the greatest and most stupid comment ever, “If slaves had
been given guns from the beginning perhaps there would have been no slavery.”
Nor should we forget to mention the claim that in “legitimate rapes” the female
body had mechanism to prevent pregnancy, or that if a baby is the result of a
rape it must have been “God’s will.”

These are only a few of the most recent stupid comments
coming out of the mouths of Republicans. I think they are merely in the best
tradition of the Republican tradition of stupid comments. The Republican Party
has not always been the Stupid Party. I’m sure history would give us many
examples of Republican stupidity, but I doubt there has been any extended
period of time for Republican stupidity that would rival the past roughly forty
years. I think it is convenient to begin with Ronald Reagan when reviewing the question
of Republican stupidity. Surely his absurd claim that “Government is the problem”
should be seen as one of the most stupid claims (as well as the most damaging)
of all time. And of course Reagan was known for other stupid remarks as well, “If
you’ve seen one Redwood you’ve seen ‘em all,” and etc.

President George W. Bush was certainly known for stupid
remarks, far too many to quote here, but a couple of the best:

"I just want you to know that, when we
talk about war, we're really talking about peace." --Washington, D.C. June
18

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and
our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5,

Rarely is the question asked: Is our
children learning?" --Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000

You might argue these are all merely slips
of the tongue but I think if you take all of the Bushisms together they are
revealing of an underlying at least mild form of retardation.

Of course many of the well known
Republicans in recent years have said things every bit as stupid as Bush. Sarah
Palin, for example:

"As Putin rears his head and comes
into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go?
It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining
why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview
with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

“The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting
money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist
argument.”

Rick Santorum:

“There are no Palestinians. All the people who live in the
West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land.”

I could, of course, go on, but I think these few examples
show that, as Jindal said, some Republicans have said really stupid things and
that should change. But I don’t believe the current Republican Party can
change, stupidity has become an integral part of who and what they are. Making
completely stupid remarks is a daily routine for the likes of Republican
spokespersons like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and others, and apparently there is
a large audience of true believers for their stupidity. Many of them continue
to believe President Obama was not born in the U.S., that he is a socialist, he
will take away their guns, and so on. They continue to try to outlaw abortion
and contraception, protect assault weapons, try to do away with Social
Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, steal elections, insult
minorities and Gays, and so on even though it is clear the American public is
opposed to such attempts. I think this indicates a vein of genuine stupidity in
the Republican ranks. Now they claim Obama wants to destroy their party,
apparently too stupid to realize they are destroying themselves.

Monday, January 28, 2013

President Obama was inaugurated for his second term only
about a week ago and here we are already discussing the 2016 election. I
suspect that only in the United States would anything so completely nonsensical
happen, other countries are much more serious when it comes go governing. Of
course we have to recognize that if 2016 was not going to be the focus for the
next four years our news media might have to actually invest money in trying to
discover if anything of note was actually happening anywhere else around the
world. I feel foolish indeed for falling into the trap of talking about 2016,
but as that is the main topic of conversation these days I decided to comment.

The primary concern, it seems, is whether or not Hillary Clinton
is going to run for President in 2016. I would think this a pretty stupid
question to ask about a woman who has apparently wanted to be President since
she was in elementary school, who already attempted it once, only to be
defeated by a nation so sexist they preferred a Black man to a more qualified
woman, the ultimate and impenetrable glass ceiling. Now, however, I believe
things will be different when she runs. Besides being an ex First Lady, a
successful and popular Senator, she has also “made her bones” as a very
successful Secretary of State, probably one of the best ever, and enjoys
enormous popularity virtually everywhere. It is widely believed that if she
runs she will be unbeatable. I believe this is true. However, there are a lot
of “ifs.”

It is four years (a long time) before the 2016 election. As
she is no longer Secretary of State she will have to do something if she wants to
remain in the public eye, something that will help her to continue to maintain her
unusual popularity and possibly even add to it. She will also run if she avoids
any health problems (she will be 69 in 2016), if she and Bill do not become involved
in some kind of scandal, if someone on the kooky extreme right doesn’t
assassinate her, if there is not some unpredictable occurrence that might
interfere with her plans, if Joe Biden gets the blessing of President Obama
rather than her, if the Republicans somehow find a candidate so sane and
charismatic he might actually challenge her, if the earth is not burned to a
crisp by then, and if, for some unknown, unpredictable, and unfathomable reason
she decides not to run, if the earth is not invaded and conquered by visitors
from outer space or destroyed by a series of nuclear accidents, if it is not
hit by a stray comet, or if women are defeated in the “war on women” and so
disgraced they are back to being barefoot and pregnant wearing flour sack
dresses in the kitchen as the Republicans would have it. She might decide she
simply does not want to put up with the horribly unpleasant roviation they will
no doubt have in store for her. Obviously most of these things are unlikely,
but four years is a long time, anything might happen, which is why we should
not even be thinking about this at least for two or three more years. But, as I
say, this is the United States, being run by a conglomerate of huge corporations
that might just decide to sell it to China rather than be troubled by it any
longer.

I do not believe that any woman, especially Hillary Clinton,
could possibly resist the temptation of becoming the first female President of
the United States. We managed somehow to elect a Black man as President, the
next step has to be a woman. It is pretty obvious that Obama is setting her up
to run in 2016 to continue his democratic legacy, equally obvious that is why
Bill Clinton has gone all out in support of Obama. It is also obvious that
Obama and Hillary share the same values and goals for the country. Who could
possibly be a better candidate to follow Obama? This is, as they say, “a
marriage made in heaven.” If Hillary runs of course I would support her
although she is far too “hawkish” for my taste. I am also not sure where she
(or even Obama for that matter) truly stands on the Israeli/Palestinian
problem. In any case who would represent the Republican opposition, Sarah Palin,
Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, the moron Governor of Texas, maybe New Jersey Fats? I
cannot see any Republican candidate that could realistically beat Hillary.

But don’t forget, many people thought she would be the
inevitable winner against Obama, and we know how that turned out.

“roviate v. to smear, slime, malign, denigrate, and attempt to destroy
an opponent through the use of innuendo, rumor, slander, outright lies and any
other despicable means available. Roviation works more effectively when done in
collusion with major media.”

Sunday, January 27, 2013

I am somewhat reluctant to comment on this issue as it is so
controversial and also ultimately far too complicated to be dealt with in less
than a book length attempt. And I am sure that whatever I say will be widely
disputed by many, perhaps everyone. But throwing caution to the wind I will
proceed.

I don’t believe the “problem” is basically about abortion or
birth control. It is more fundamental than either of those two issues and has
to do with the attempts by men in all societies to control women. The problem
with women, through no fault of their own, is that they are women, and women,
by virtue of their very being, are, I suspect, however unconsciously (or
consciously) perceived by men as
threatening the social solidarity of human societies. It is not the existence
of female sexuality itself, widely enjoyed by males everywhere, but, rather,
the fact that women, both sexually and in other nurturant and loving ways, can
and do come between men. There are few things that have the potential to come
between brothers, clansmen, and even fathers and sons, more than females. In
many if not most so-called “primitive” societies fights over women are fairly
commonplace, and it is clear that even in our more “advanced” industrial
societies men continue to sometimes fight over women. It is not only the threat
women pose to the relations between men that is disruptive, but also the fact
that women often also destroy marriages. Think of all the men who run off with
their secretaries or divorce their loyal wives of many years for the “trophy
wife” or the “younger woman” and so on. This is not the fault of women but
simply the facts of life when there are two distinct genders or sexes, and
especially when there are expectations of “masculinity” and “femininity.”

I doubt, for example, that most men are particularly
troubled by Lesbians, except perhaps because they are not available to them.
I’m pretty sure that if a man’s wife leaves him for a woman it does not affect
him as much as if she leaves him for another man. I even doubt that most men
are particularly offended by the love-making of two women, indeed, I know they
will often pay for the privilege of observing such sexual activity. Aside from
perhaps homosexual men, I doubt most men would pay for the privilege of watching
two men engaged in sexual activity. I suspect that women kissing each other does not bother most
people, both men and women, as much as two men kissing each other (something
becoming more and more common these days).

Obviously sexuality plays an important role in the overall
relations between the sexes, but there is much more involved in relationships
between men and women. Both men and women, for example, often are attracted to
members of the opposite sex that cannot be perceived as merely sexual attraction,
people do not fall in love and stay married primarily because of sex. Often it
is not at all obvious why two people “find each other,” hence we often hear that “opposites attract,”
or I don’t see what he or she sees in her or him, and so on. The fact is, men
and women are attracted to each other for many reasons and unfortunately often
in ways that disrupt the social order, cause trouble and even in some severe
cases lead to jealously, unhappiness, murders and suicides. The basic
biological and psychological differences between men and women, while
delightful in their ways, can also be disruptive of the social order.

It is obvious that historically and even now to a different extent
in different cultures the behavior of women has been controlled to a greater or
lesser extent by men. Most societies have been primarily patriarchal, women
have had a lesser voice in political and other important matters, and even in
societies where descent is reckoned through females the effective control of
those societies is in the hands of males (mother’s brothers, for example). It
is interesting to contrast extreme examples of societies in which women are
dressed from head to toe in burkas with those in which they go virtually naked
in tiny bikinis and such. I suspect the presence of women as threats to society
are not as different as we might suppose and the bikinis do not represent
female freedom from male dominance as much as one might suppose. One could well
argue that the wearing of bikinis only reinforces the image of women as sex
objects in basically the same way the wearing of burkas does. It might be true
that in some ways women have “come a long way, baby,” but in some very basic
ways “things change but stay the same.”

Women are the only
oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their
opressors.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

I think I am suffering from Blogger’s Block and I don’t know
why. I thought I might attribute it to “stress,” stress being a convenient
explanation these days for not being able to do things, think things, perform
things, manage your affairs, and even sometimes pay your bills and stuff. But
then I started thinking about the concept of stress. First, stress is not a
very precisely defined term, second, I think it is often merely used as an
excuse, third, it is widely overused, and fourth, I find it difficult to
separate stress from the natural course of events accompanying someone’s “Journey
to the West “ Let me explain.

When I worked in a large Department of Psychiatry (my first
academic position) there was a Psychiatrist (who will remain unnamed) who was
doing (what I thought was somewhat questionable) research on stress. He and his assistant had developed a scale of
stress they believed would allow them to predict who might be the most prone to
illness, accidents, or even death. Their scale dealt with assigning (arbitrary)
scores to different events people might or might not experience. Things like
being ill, getting married or divorced, having a child, losing a loved one like
a spouse or a parent, financial
troubles, accidents, and I don’t remember
what all. What I do remember is that in 1965 I calculated that if I took
seriously this scale I would have by then have probably died at least twice.
You can only imagine where I ought to be by now, almost fifty years later.

Certainly there has been almost unending stress in my life
in the past few months. My wife of thirty years died a completely unexpected
death from a stroke four months ago, also I became a grandfather for the first
time about four months ago, I inherited bills I didn’t know I had (plus bills I
already knew I had), I now live alone in a large home stuffed with things I am
having trouble coping with, and so on. On top of that, today I had to have my
oldest (wife’s) cat euthanized. Besides, it snowed last night making my
driveway difficult to maneuver. Thus, I should be suffering from plenty of
stress that is keeping me from wanting to write this blog.

But in spite of my situation I somehow do not feel terribly
stressed out. I do not really understand this but I doubt it is the reason I am
finding it difficult to blog. Personally, I think American politics and
government have become so idiotic I just
can’t be bothered to concern myself any longer. When one of the most important
matters that concerns us is whether or not Beyonce lip-synched the national anthem
during the inauguration I confess to losing interest in the matter. More
importantly, when Republican Senators, supposedly grilling our Secretary of
State on important matters, ask stupid questions and try to score cheap political
points and bask in the spotlight rather than being serious about an issue
already settled, I also lose interest. These Senators, among the most powerful
leaders we have, merely exposed themselves as the basic partisan hacks they
really are, making themselves look even more foolish than they already are.

And so, thinking back on my life, the deaths of my parents, the
divorces, the children, my adventures in New Guinea and elsewhere, being in
college and in the army, having surgeries, cancer, heart attacks losing most of
my classmates and friends, I do not understand why I should still be here trying
to write this blog. I have concluded that stress is perhaps merely a euphemism
for “life” itself. That is, living is in most respects being constantly
stressed by events and experiences beyond our control. Life is by nature
stressful. Once you grasp this basic fact of existence it is not easy to claim
stress as something so unusual as to cause your inadequacies or incapacitate
you. Life merely goes on from one stress to another until your own personal
Journey to the West comes to a merciful end. Concepts like “eternal peace,” “eternal rest” and “eternal bliss” take on much more salience than “passed
away,” “meeting your maker,” “entering
heaven,” reincarnation, or any notions of an afterlife. I am pretty much
convinced the purpose of death is to allow one to escape any such further
stress. I can think of virtually no fate worse than having to do it all over
again in a different life or context. The thought of having to deal with forty
virgins I find singularly horrifying. I like to believe that when you are dead,
you are dead and thus not plagued by any further stresses.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Anyone who has followed this blog for very long must have
noticed it appears less often and more unpredictably than it did in the past. I find it more difficult to write, I guess,
for a variety of reasons: my wife’s unexpected death, the holidays, my
increasing age and lack of creativity, the banality of what passes for “news,”
and a general lack of motivation and inspiration. I also have been seized by a
bout of genuine nostalgia.

I don’t know if things were better in the good ol’ days, but
in many ways it seems to me they were. Looking back over my life I think
probably the best period was during WWII when I was a teenager. I don’t know if
this is because I was younger and not as well informed about the world as I am
now, or if it was, in fact, a better and
more satisfying time. I don’t enjoy the image of myself as a cranky old man
complaining about changes I don’t understand, and I don’t know how one would
ever really know what period of time was better than others. It does seem to me
things were different and simpler back in those days. Life was much less
frantic than it seems to be now. The music was softer, gentler, more romantic,
and you could even understand the lyrics. While it is true we jitterbugged and
there was be-bop and boogie woogie, it was in general far more dominated by the
big band era and sentimental music for dancing. To me much of what passes for
music today is little more than noise and the pace is frantic, the lyrics
unintelligible, and the dancing painfully unchoreographed.

Motion pictures, too, were very different. It is true we
enjoyed mostly westerns and detective and gangster movies, and there was a bit
of shooting and violence, but the good guys always won and when compared to
what passes for movies nowadays they were genuinely benign. Violence and sex,
especially the latter, were not the dominant themes and, like music, movies
were more romantic, featuring musicals and romantic comedies rather than the
ubiquitous sex and violence that dominates what we are offered nowadays. In
general the pace of life was slower without computers and the internet. We
wrote our schoolwork out by hand or at best on the typewriter, copying things
was more difficult, and things, in general, required more thought and effort.

With no television we received our news from the radio or
from brief news programs that usually accompanied movies. With no television
and computer games we played outside and had to entertain ourselves through activity
rather than simply sitting and watching. We were much more physical. Obesity
was not a national problem. Medicine was more primitive, I do not recall anyone
having health insurance. If you were sick and could afford it you saw a doctor,
people died younger and no doubt suffered more but they did not tithe money to
insurance companies as we do now. Health care has always been a problem and
while it is better now than it was it is still a problem. A single payer system
would obviously be the best solution but at the moment this would appear to be
out of the question.

I wasn’t much interested in politics as a teenager, but I
was certainly aware of the war effort and followed Roosevelt and Churchill as
they eventually prevailed against the Nazis. There was none of the bitter
partisanship that characterizes contemporary politics. While there were differences
between Republican and Democrats both parties had the best interest of the
nation in the forefront of their behavior, no one would have placed party ahead
of national interest. We had no “empire” to defend, no troops stationed all
around the world, all of that began slowly after the war years and has grown
like a sort of cancer on our foreign policy.

I find it impossible to say that things are either better or
worse today than they were in the 1940’s and 50’s. Some things are obviously
better, cars are better, tires are better, refrigerators are better, people
live longer on the average, Black people and women are better off than
previously, and so on. But there is still racism and sexism, poverty may even
be worse, our politics are a mess, global warming is a terrible threat, the
national debt is a threat, our infrastructure has deteriorated badly, our
educational system is a disaster, we are killing each other at an unprecedented
rate, and our government is dysfunctional. Are we better off than we were? As
an old man I don’t think so. I think I was much happier back in the 40’s and 50’s.
Sadly, it doesn’t matter.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

I guess Armageddon is going to be child’s play after what is
happening now because of President Obama’s recent common sense proposals to
help curb gun violence in the U.S. What an uproar, what a reaction, what
hysteria, what overreaction, what consummate nonsense. Everything the NRA and
many Republicans are now saying about Obama’s attempt to do something about gun
violence is either blatantly untrue, entirely far-fetched, or unbelievably
stupid. Their mouths are apparently no longer connected to their brains, if
they ever were.

Obama is trying to do away with the second amendment is
untrue as is Rubio’s claim that Obama doesn’t really believe in the second amendment
but is unwilling to say so. The idea that the second amendment was created to
protect citizens from their government, a common belief for many of these
nutcases is completely false. The claim that Obama’s actions are a prelude to
some kind of world government, or this represents a form of government
oppression, or even an excuse to impose martial law, are all nonsense.
Accusations to the effect that Obama is a Tyrant or a dictator in the form of Hitler
or Stalin are so far-fetched as to be unworthy of attention. Calls for his
impeachment betray a pathetic misunderstanding of the reality of Executive
privileges. Nothing Obama has done offers even a remote possibility for
impeachment.

The more extreme reactions, such as those suggesting the
opponents just start killing, or begin a civil war, or just refuse to follow
federal laws about guns, hopefully are just thoughtless loose talk made in
anger, at least we should certainly hope so. If some states try to make
enforcing a federal law some kind of felony, or try to refuse to enforce
federal laws, it could presumably lead to some kind of civil war. One the one
hand it is hard to take such threats seriously, but on the other hand it is
possible that at least some of the nutcases
are crazy enough to actually start shooting. Virtually all of the claims that
are being made about Obama’s suggestions are either untrue or far-fetched, and
in a sense I guess you could argue they are also sort of stupid.

But stupidity reaches its zenith when you consider some of
the other things that are being said about the situation. For example, the
claim that Obama’s use of children during his presentation constitutes a form
of child abuse, a claim that could only come out of the mouths of those looking
for anything at all to hold against Obama. But even that claim pales in to insignificance
compared to whoever it was that suggested that if slaves had been allowed to
have guns perhaps there might not have been slavery in the first place (I rather doubt that on a scale of stupidity
this can ever be outdone). Of course whoever it was that argued for the use of
silencers because “it helps to preserve children’s hearing,” isn’t far behind.
And of course there is the famous ad featuring Obama’s children that accuses
Obama of being an elite hypocrite because his children are being guarded while
he is opposed to the guarding of other children (which, in fact, he is not, but
this ad also reveals an apparent disregard of the reality of being children of
a President). The NRA and its supporters obviously have no shame and have made
it clear they are willing to do and say anything to increase the profits of gun
manufacturers (they have been enormously successful in recent years).

One thing that surprises me, although it probably shouldn’t,
is the tenacity with which they cling to their assault rifles. They seem
completely unwilling to give up these military weapons even though it is
perfectly obvious they have no function other than killing lots of people as
quickly as possible. As they were for a time banned, which seems to have not
been terribly onerous, and as they obviously have no hunting or sporting uses,
it is difficult to see such complete resistance. I guess this is due to the
paranoid and absurd belief they will protect us from our government, one of the
more egregious lies we have been fed over time by the NRA in their attempt to
increase profits for the manufacturers. I know people who actually believe, I guess following Saint Ronnie, that
government is the problem and etc. Once someone has this false belief it is
virtually impossible to change them. They not only believe the government is
out to harm them they also believe their puny little assault rifles will
actually protect them from the full force of the military, police, and the
massive weapons at the disposal of government, strange, these apparently
mindless fools. All in all, having been following things fairly closely for the
past four or five years, I have come to the conclusion it can be pretty much
summed up with two words – He’s Black.

Monday, January 14, 2013

I have both seen and heard it said that Congress will not
pass any ban on assault weapons. I find this interesting if for no other reason
than why this might be so. I see no reason, logical or otherwise why private
citizens should own assault weapons. The explanation they are for target
practice is feeble in the extreme. The only explanation for the ownership of
such weapons has to do with the belief it might be necessary to defend
ourselves from our own government, a belief no more than a fantasy in the minds
of the truly paranoid. These individuals argue that the Founding Fathers
created the 2nd amendment so that citizens could protect themselves
from their government, a belief actually quite the opposite of the truth. It is
also a belief so transparent in its naivete as to be laughable. The idea that
citizens armed with small caliber rifles, even grenades and rocket launchers,
could defeat the federal government should that be necessary is simply ridiculous.

If it is true that Congress will not pass a ban on assault
weapons it would seem to me there are only two possible reasons. First, there
are enough Congresspersons who subscribe to the paranoid belief the government
is their enemy (I guess we can thank Saint Ronnie for this stupid idea), or
second, they are all being bribed by the gun industry to promote this idea in
order to make more profits. In either case it
is paranoia that drives the market. Thus we are either at the mercy of
the demonstrably insane or an industry that encourages such beliefs for the sole
purpose of short term profits. If Congress refuses to pass a ban on assault
rifles paranoia wins and sanity loses. At the moment I think I would bet on
paranoia as the idea that President Obama is after their guns seems to have
been well established among the not so gently mad.

Republican arguments against the reasonable, logical, and practical
proposals of the Obama administration have now become so untenable they have
had to turn to more personal attacks. They have resurrected an earlier claim
that Obama is too antisocial and does not do enough socializing with
Congresspersons, an argument so pathetic as to be simply ignored. Not only
that, they have now decided their strategy to oppose Hagel should consist of a
discussion of his “overall temperament.”
That is, does he have the proper temperament to run a large organization
and etc., an argument not only pathetic in the extreme but entirely absurd. When
you have no real arguments just bluff and obfuscate and create suspicion and
confusion.

It is now being said that the Republican Party is going to
have to change if it is to survive as a viable political party, change to keep
up with the changing demography of our nation. I do not see how this is going
to be possible given their inherent racism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia,
and completely dysfunctional economic theories. These are deep-seated beliefs that are not
going to be easily changed, certainly not in time for the 2016 elections and
quite likely for a long time even after that, perhaps never (happy day).

It appears Republicans have finally realized the debt limit
racket is not going to work for them this time. They are now focusing on other
means of shutting down the government, causing Obama even more trouble,
plotting to keep any progress from being made. It seems to me that Obama, as
President, has been more than merely reasonable with his opponents and has, in
spite of them, been in general pretty successful. The things that bother me
about Obama, the hawkishness, drones, civil rights, and such, are not things
that should bother Republicans. Thus I have to conclude their obvious, even
growing hatred of President Obama is primarily racial in origin. They have not
been able to overcome the basic paradigm of Western-European culture that
featured the Great Chain of Being and the evolution of culture that placed
white males at the very top of the scale and other races and genders below
them. I suspect it will take at least two or three more generations before this
insidious colonial carryover disappears.

The most important
scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the
dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous
convictions about our centrality in the cosmos.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

It is very difficult if you have been following developments
in the United States for the past thirty plus years not to conclude that we
have developed what appears to be(however unconsciously) a national death wish.
I doubt that most U.S. citizens would acknowledge this and I suspect most are
probably not even aware of it, but it is, alas, true, or so it seems to me. I
do not know precisely when this began but I suspect it began in earnest during
the Reagan administration. There is no indication I am aware of that either
Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter, whatever their shortcomings might have been,
were anti-government or did not have the national interest at heart. It was
Reagan, the “Great Communicator,” who first told us that “Government is the
problem,” and things seem to have gone downhill ever since. It is obvious there
are those in government today that still cling to this rather ridiculous
belief, the result of which has been extremely unhealthy for our well-being. As
a nation and a culture we are slowly dying while doing little or nothing to
prevent our demise. Consider where we are with respect to the most important
problems we face:

Global warming, for example, is almost certainly the greatest
potential threat to our continued existence on planet earth. What actions have
we taken to attempt to deal with this terrible threat? The answer, I fear, is
virtually none in any truly meaningful way.

What have we done to combat the serious problem we have with
unemployment? Again, virtually nothing of substance, the rate appears to have
stabilized at roughly eight percent.

Our infrastructure is widely known to be badly neglected and
getting worse year after year. We have done nothing to deal with this trillion
dollar problem.

Our environment, too, has been damaged and continues to
suffer increasing damage as a result of unregulated or illegal business practices,
especially from resource extraction and the demands of energy.

Our educational system, from the primary grades to the
highest levels, is little more than a shambles, and, from a national interest
standpoint is dysfunctional almost beyond belief. Our universities and colleges
that should be geared to turning out intelligent well-rounded individuals, have
become little more than trade schools, so expensive as to actually punish, with
massive debt, those wishing to improve their lives and contribute to our
betterment.

Our health care is a disgrace when compared to the rest of
the developed world, far more expensive than health care in other
industrialized nations, and demonstrably not always any better in spite of the
greater expense.

The U.S.
political/economic situation has become so dysfunctional as to be almost
useless when it comes to dealing with the abovementioned problems. Public
service has been replaced with naked greed and the distribution of wealth, if
not curtailed, will lead to even further disaster.

It seems obvious to me that all of these problems, if
continued to be neglected and unsolved, are going to lead to the end of our
nation as a viable socio-cultural entity. The most unfortunate part of this is
that all of these problems could be solved, perhaps not easily, but almost
certainly. If we fail to deal with global warming, unemployment ,
infrastructure, environmental degradation, education and health care how can we
possibly survive for long in the modern world?

One final problem, perhaps the most serious of all, and
inextricably related to all of them, is what seems to be the growing distrust
of science. When 98% of the world’s scientists agree on the problem of global
warming, and a few individuals in positions of power and influence can override
them, you should know you are on the road to national suicide. Some of these
individuals are known bible-thumpers and might actually believe in biblical
nonsense, but others are in the pockets of greedy corporations who simply do
not want regulations on their destructive behavior no matter what the long-term
effects may be, short-term profits take precedence over the human condition.

I have no idea where Saint Ronnie came by his absurd belief
that “Government is the Problem,” perhaps from Nancy’s Astrologer. In any case,
insofar as this belief has informed our “Leaders,” and encouraged them to
refuse to fund vital governmental programs such as education, health care,
environmental protection, and so forth, it has done irreparable damage to our
lives and threatens our very existence as a nation. It’s too bad science will
not be allowed to clone dinosaurs so we could all ride them happily off to the
West and ultimate oblivion.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

I don’t remember for sure but I believe it must have been
LBJ who said, “If I could walk on water the headlines would read, ‘President
can’t swim.’” This attitude would seem to be far more relevant for President
Obama than any previous President. It seems there is nothing he can do,
literally nothing, that Republicans will not criticize and oppose. I submit this
is petty in the extreme. You might think Republicans would be interested in the
serious problems that confront us: global warming, unemployment,
infrastructure, health care, the deficit, whatever, but they are not, being
consumed with opposing Obama’s choices for his cabinet (whoever they are) and
vowing to oppose everything he wishes to accomplish. As none of his appointments
are unqualified, and as Presidents usually are entitled to name their own cabinet
members, this can only be seen as petty. John McCain has to be seen as the most
petty opponent of all as his objections to Obama’s wishes are clearly driven by
revenge for his defeat by Obama in previous election. Similarly, their
criticism of Obama’s choice of four white male cabinet members because of the
lack of diversity is, coming from those consistently “warring on women,” is
simply laughable. There appears to be nothing Obama is for that Republicans
will not be against, even things Republicans themselves previously approved. If
this is not petty in the extreme I do not know what would be.

Their pettiness is overshadowed by their pusillanimous
voting records. They are far too timid (or cowardly) to vote for anything that
might upset the NRA, Israel, or the corporate interests that contribute to
keeping them in office. They seem to be incapable of connecting their votes to
the everyday lives of real, live human beings or what used to be considered the
public good. Seemingly ideologically, rather than reality driven, they timidly vote
as they are told, thoughtlessly and apparently without either shame or guilt. In
fact it is not ideology that motivates them, as they claim, but rather, obvious
bribes in the form of financial contributions, golfing trips, devious financial
benefits, and so on. There is no longer any connection between public service and
the public. The concept of public service has given way to the private enrichment
that comes from serving your lord and master and remaining in office as long as
possible.

You can take it as a given that wherever capitalism thrives
the public and the environment will suffer. Marx may have been wrong about communism
but he was right about capitalism.

Oh, yes, guns. It may be that assault rifles and high
capacity magazines will become illegal. It may even be that a national register
for guns materializes along with universal background checks. I am all for such
restrictions on guns and gun ownership. I’m not sure I think it will make much
difference as there are already far too many guns in the U.S. and they will
quite likely go underground into a thriving black market. But any restrictions
are better than no restrictions and perhaps over time (a long time I fear) if
they are faithfully pursued it may ultimately make a difference. It is true,
however, that we live in a culture of violence that will also have to change to
make a real difference, a change that may prove to be far more difficult that
improving our gun laws. If we obsessed as much with our culture of violence as
we do with our obsessions with diet and erections perhaps something positive
might be achieved. Don’t bet the farm on
it.

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

What in the hell is the matter with most everyone… when it
comes to Iran? I absolutely do not understand the obsession we seem to have
with Iran and the claim that Iran is somehow a mortal threat, not only to the
U.S. but, indeed, to the world. I
believe this is not only ridiculous but also stupid almost beyond belief.

Today, while perusing the news on the internet, I saw some
Congressman, maybe even a Senator (I cannot remember) claim, without even the
mention of a disclaimer, that we have to keep Iran from developing a nuclear
weapon. He said this as if it were a known fact that everyone knew for certain
that Iran was in the process of actually developing such a weapon. I am
obviously not privy to secret intelligence information about what Iran is or is
not doing when it comes to such matters, but
the little I do know from the information I do have is that there is no
evidence Iran is in fact even trying to develop such a weapon. They deny it,
our own intelligence people seem to agree, and it seems to me there is more
reason to believe they are not than to believe they are, and yet this assumption
(accusation) seems to persist no matter what.

Chris Matthews, who talks incessantly when he should be
listening, said something to the effect,
“I’m ready to go to war with Iran” (presumably if it is necessary). What
conceivable reason would we go to war with Iran if it were not for the
assumption they are trying to develop a nuclear bomb, which as far as I know
they are not? This Iranian obsession seems to have taken over the country even
though there seems to be no solid evidence that Iran is doing anything other
than what they are legally entitled to do when it comes to enriching uranium. Furthermore,
they have repeatedly tried to discuss this problem with the U.S. only to be
rudely rebuffed by the Bush/Cheney administration and now by the Obama
administration. It seems they are not be to allowed to do anything unless they
agree to our conditions even before talks begin.

Now they are subjected to crippling sanctions designed to
make them do the bidding of the West. The sanctions work terrible hardships on
the Iranian people, especially women and children, but do little to bring about
the changes we seem to be constantly demanding. It is perfect y obvious such
sanctions do not work very well, witness our sanctions on Cuba and formerly on
Iraq (where, according to one previous Secretary of State, the death of 500,000
Iraqi children was “worth it”). At first I thought the sanctions were put in
place to placate the Israelis and keep us from an all-out war, but I gather
they have some other reason making them, too, “worth it.” I think they are
disgusting, disgraceful, and ultimately will have made the situation much worse
than it ever needed to be.

I hear this constant refrain that Iran is a terrorist state,
supporting terrorists and meddling in Iraq and so on. Yet every time I see them
accused of providing arms or something in Iraq, two or three days later there
is a retraction that denies there is any such evidence. And while it is
doubtless true that Iran helps Hezbollah and Hamas, those organizations are
terrorist organizations only in the eyes of the West that supports the criminal
state of Israel. It appears that Iran, a large and heavily populated country in
the Middle East, is not supposed to have any national interests there (at least those that conflict with the interests
of the U.S. and others far outside the region).

Recently I saw a headline claiming that Iran is a danger to
the U.S. because they have been developing ties with South American countries.
Apparently they are not only to be forbidden to have any interests in the
Middle East, they are also to be denied interests anywhere else in the world.
Iran is a proud country with a very long history of civilization (long before
we gave up dressing in the skins of animals). We insist on treating them as
just another inferior nation that should of course do our bidding without
question. This has not, and will not work. It is a short-sighted and stupid
policy that has alienated Iran further and further from the U.S. They have
tried to use diplomacy in their relations with us and we have rebuffed them
repeatedly. It is obvious the issue is not really over Iran having a nuclear
weapon (which they are probably not developing and that would be of no use to
them whatsoever), but, rather, over who is to retain hegemony in the Middle
East. I guess this absurd obsession with Iran keeps attention away from the
real source of trouble in the area – Israel.

Sunday, January 06, 2013

I was asking myself, “How could anyone vote against the
Violence Against Women Act,” and that led to, how could anyone vote against
unemployment insurance, food stamps, living wages, health care, Social
Security, Aid for disasters, and etc., etc . I suddenly realized that was the
wrong question, for how someone votes against such things is basically simple,
you just vote a simple three letter word, either aye or nay, or you fill out a
secret ballot that accomplishes the same thing. It’s very easy. You don’t even
have to know anything about what you are voting for, nor do you have to
associate it with the living people it may be going to either help or harm. Voting
for your “principles” in the abstract, disassociated from actual persons, does
not even require questions of conscience.

The more important
question is obviously why do people vote against such seemingly worthwhile
measures? I confess I cannot answer this question, certainly not in most cases,
as the explanations I hear rarely if ever make sense to me. In the case of the
Violence against Women Act, for example, it would seem the only reason to vote
against it apparently had to do with the fact that it focused on Immigrant and
American Indian women. That only makes sense if you suppose that American
Indian and Immigrant women are somehow less important than other women and that
raping them is relatively unimportant. I can’t imagine those who voted against
this Act would admit publicly to those reasons but what other reasons could
they have? Perhaps because they thought it would cost money, an even more
questionable and disgusting reason.

Why would anyone vote against aid for disaster victims, an
unprecedented vote, given that such aid has always been given in the past? Some
have suggested that prejudice against the Northeast may have something to do
with it. Maybe that is true. But again, the arguments have to do with the cost.
Of course the cost of aid for Katrina or most other such disasters has never
really been raised, except after the fact. The same standard could have been
applied in the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut cases, but it wasn’t. It seems
that disaster aid to the Southern States has always been quickly forthcoming
but this case involving the Northeast is somehow different, why I do not truly know,
but my suspicious mind is at work on it.

The arguments
involving “costs” has raised the issue of human hypocrisy to what is probably
unprecedented levels. You will have noticed that Republicans cling to the claim
the national debt is the single greatest problem facing us and demand an end to
further spending at every opportunity. They are so obsessed with this idea they
may be willing to even damage the credit rating of the U.S. and even the
world-wide economy, a rather strange idea that would, of course, make things
far worse than they are. They constantly rail against President Obama and the
Democrats for being “big spenders” and conveniently forget that most of our
massive debt can be traced to their own party under the leadership of Bush/Cheney. Their two unfunded
“wars,” a massive give-away to the Pharmaceutical Industry, and massive tax
breaks for the already wealthiest individuals and corporations brought about
the debt in the first place. Now their new found faith in an austerity program,
if allowed to succeed, will make it impossible to recover from their
destructive behavior. This will please the Tea Party folk who seem to relish
the destruction of government at all levels. You might recall Cheney’s claim
that “Reagan proved the national debt didn’t matter” (or words to that effect).
Have they ever apologized for being so wrong? Of course not, they want to
enshrine Saint Ronnie (who began our disastrous fall) on Mt. Rushmore.

I confess I do not know why it is Republicans are against
virtually everything that might make life easier and better for ordinary
working people, unemployment insurance, health care, minimum wages,
contraception, abortion, food stamps, violence against women, unions, whatever.
This is a new breed of Republicans, they were not always like that. Indeed,
they used to try to do the right thing by everyone (even though their ideas of
the right thing might have been different at times). They used to be a genuine
political party rather than a conglomeration of greedy bribe takers doing the
bidding for those on the forefront of exploitation, short-term gains, middle
class and environmental destruction. As they can no longer be trusted with the
public interest we need to find ways to govern without them in so far as that
might be possible. Perhaps after the next election in 2014 we might mercifully
be rid of them.

Friday, January 04, 2013

As I recall, when I was a boy in elementary school, there
was a statement that sometimes occurred on someone’s report card which you had
to take home and show your parents. Along with your grades in various subjects
there were brief reports on your conduct. “Does not play well with others” was
sometimes reported for those students who for whatever reason were disruptive
and caused trouble in school, those who just did not get along well with other
children. If the parents (or the teachers) could not change the behavior of
such troublemakers and their disruptive behavior continued over time they could
be transferred to another classroom, or, even eventually become expelled from
school. The cause of their behavior was not the issue, merely their behavior.
Similarly, a student who did not even intend to be disruptive might be forced
out for their “bad” behavior. When I was in the second grade (yes, I can still
remember this) the girl that sat at a desk immediately across from me wet her
pants on a daily basis. This was very disruptive and of course I’m sure the
poor girl suffered much more than her classmates, but that didn’t matter. I
don’t know what happened to her but I do know she did not last long in our
second grade class. Although I do not know precisely how they worked, there
obviously were ways to deal with such problem children. What a pity we have no
way to deal with such problem persons in Congress or other positions of power
and influence.

Of course we do have a way of sorts, but it is too slow and
inefficient to help very much. In fact in some cases, because of
gerrymandering, it is now virtually impossible to remove certain
Congresspersons no matter how extreme (or apparently “crazy”) their behavior.
Having to wait for the next election to remove someone from office can lead to
closing the door after the damage has already been done. I do not wish to name
specific individuals but there is no doubt that we have some Congresspersons
who for whatever reason are so extreme in their views as to be broadly conceived
as way “too far out,” or even perhaps insane. Of course nowadays it is
difficult to know whether someone is being paid to act crazy on certain issues
(guns or oil or climate or drugs or evolution, for example) or whether they
might actually be crazy.

Unfortunately, it seems we have at the moment quite a number
of those who do not play well with others. For example, when 98% of the world’s
scientists agree on global warming, probably the single most frightening thing
for human life, and there are still those who refuse to believe it, you know
you are dealing with the truly deranged, “crazies,” “weirdos,” “religious nut
cases,” or perhaps those who are willing to say anything if the money is right.
For those who insist on believing the earth is only 6000 years old and people
lived contemporaneously with dinosaurs I doubt the money has much to do with it
(but I wouldn’t completely rule it out in all cases). Those individuals who
simply reject science entirely are truly out of touch and have no business in
office and should be expelled forthwith.

This is not to suggest people should not, or cannot have
different opinions on important matters. But they should at least have some
acceptable evidence or cogent argument for their positions. “The bible says…,”
“It’s God’s will…,” “My mother told
me…,” or simply “I believe…,” do not constitute reasonable arguments for
nonsensical beliefs that might well have harmful effects on others or the
earth.

There are also those who make pronouncements about things
that simply have no basis in fact. “Birthers” would fall under this category.
“There are 78 or 80 members of the communist party among the Democratic caucus”
would also have to be seen as simply nonsense. The problem with this category
of apparent lunatics is simply that you can suspect they are making these
claims for purely political points, or perhaps just to draw attention to
themselves, but you know at the same time they are really stupid even for those
reasons. I’m sure there will always be those who do not play well with others.
When it comes to government and matters of critical importance to us all there
should be quicker and more efficient mechanisms for getting rid of them. Why
must we listen to the babbling of idiots for years before there is even any
chance to be rid of them? The fact that such people can live and thrive in our
government for years before any action can be taken is, I think, a basic flaw
in our system. Yes, I know, there is also impeachment, but how often have you
ever seen anyone successfully impeached (and I assure you we have some who
should have been impeached long ago).

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

I realize this is a question so basically philosophical it
could not possibly be settled (if settled at all) by a brief blog. But I am
stimulated to consider it by the argument made by some that Gay marriages are
“unnatural.” This is an argument that would seem to have some merit, depending
upon what is meant by “natural.” If you assume that marriages are natural
because they produce offspring, and Gay marriages do not, this position makes
some sense. But many marriages do not produce offspring. Marriages between
seniors, for example, do not result in offspring. Similarly, there are many
couples who marry but have to desire to have children. There are also marriages
between Gays and “Straits,” as well as marriages between Lesbians and Straits. Similarly,
if you examine marriages around the world they do not necessarily involve the
goal of having children, or even, necessarily, paternity. There are, for
example, polyandrous marriages in which one woman has two or more husbands who
take turns claiming paternity whether the particular husband is truly the
progenitor or not. There are marriages in which a woman claims to be married to
the ghost of her deceased husband and brings in a lover to actually father her
child. Indeed, a woman can marry another woman to be considered the father of
her child if the woman has enough cattle or whatever to marry. Among some
American Indians there was a custom called the couvades in which a woman could
marry as a husband or a man could marry as a wife. There is a long-standing claim
that in at least one society (perhaps more than one) the role of sex in
procreation is not even recognized, the fetus being given to a woman by an
ancestral ghost or some kind of spirit.

Now you might argue that such strange customs do not
constitute true marriages as we think of them. But as far as I know they all
involve public ceremonies that recognize the legality of the relationships and
also the parental rights and responsibilities that derive from them. You could,
it seems to me, argue that “marriage” is itself somewhat unnatural. That is, no
other mammalian species relies on anything like marriage to propagate their
species. The human species could certainly, and often does, reproduce itself
without the benefit of marriage. When you consider polygamy, serial monogamy,
common law, and such, it seems pretty clear that while such unions may be
“unusual” they are not necessarily unnatural. So how does one distinguish the natural from
the unnatural, and the unnatural from the unusual? I cannot say that I know,
but I regard it as a most interesting question, and I would suggest that if
someone does not know they should exercise caution before condemning things as
unnatural.

What about left-handedness? Is this merely unusual or is it
unnatural. Years ago some considered it so unnatural as to try to force the
left handed to use their right hands, often resulting in undesirable
consequences. What about someone like Phil Mickelson who is apparently
“naturally” right handed but plays professional golf left handed, or the rare
ambidextrous people who seem proficient with either hand? They are, it is true, unusual, but are they
also unnatural? It does not seem so to me. Similarly, when I look out my living
room window I see a forest of various evergreen trees. They are all virtually
perfectly straight, tall, and beautiful, except for one that has a strange and
unattractive bend in it. Is that unnatural or merely unusual? How does one
distinguish between the unusual and the unnatural?

If one person is unusually attractive and another unusually
unattractive, does that make attractive more natural than unattractive? What
about those unfortunates with physical defects, like harelips or club feet? If
they exist in nature, as they do, how can they be considered unnatural? In
order to make such judgments you have to have in mind some kind of standard,
however abstract, of what a natural human is supposed to look like, a standard
of “normality.” If one deviates sufficiently from this standard we say they are
unnatural, or abnormal. But if they exist in nature in the same way “normals”
do how can we say they are unnatural? You can say, of course, they do not
represent God’s intentions, but how do we know what God’s intentions are? It
was recently argued by one of our “leaders” that even when a child was
conceived by an act of rape it must have been God’s intention.” Does that make
sense? In some cultures those who are somewhat “insane,” or even epileptic, are
regarded as especially gifted and can become shamans or perhaps seers, whereas
in other cultures they can be seen as most undesirable. In some cultures
speaking in tongues and falling into trances are regarded as perfectly normal,
at least in some circumstances. While such individuals may be regarded as unusual
they are not regarded as unnatural. Even human customs like headhunting and
cannibalism have been seen as perfectly natural by some people but regarded as
completely unnatural by others. I could go on but of course this seems
perfectly obvious.

In any case, when you hear someone claim something or other
is God’s will or a Natural right, bite the bullet, take a deep breath, pause
for reflection, consider the source, look for the motive, and watch your
wallet. Do we even have a right to be born: an American, African, Asian,
wealthy, poor, healthy, sick, handicapped, brilliant, dull? I do not know, it
is all part of the Great Mystery.